Skip to main content

tv   Q A  CSPAN  June 19, 2011 8:00pm-9:00pm EDT

8:00 pm
we wanted to go inside the new york times newsroom and this is all we were allowed to show. he is the only one who would talk to us 25 years ago. >> we have grown and continued to grow at a steady rate in the metropolitan area, to a point for we might be bucking up against some type of ceiling. we do not consider ourselves a popular newspaper. the paper is addressed to a specific kind of audience with a certain education level, mainly. we are approaching now almost saturation point in the greater metropolitan area. we are looking for opportunities to continue to expand our circulation. i suppose newspaper people are driven always to try to get the paper out to more people, and also we are very interested in continuing to expand our national base and to be
8:01 pm
considered a national newspaper. >> were not allowed to show the newsroom. that is all we could get. what would get at -- what would it have been like for you if that is all you could have gotten? >> i think the film might have been of little narrower in its ambitions, also. it is really going inside the four walls of an institution that has original reporting as its mandate, at a time when newspapers are suffering and try to see what journalism really takes in order to have it be executed. so we see david carr on the media desk, brian statler and the editor, all writing about the state of the media. interviewing julian assange right when wikileaks became the big story. it is not a movie that has a ton of talking heads, which that
8:02 pm
interview is. it is it fascinating to see, particularly as a historical document. we have bill keller and very candid moments discussing the layouts that took place at the end of 2009 with a much different tenor that was all there. there was a real sense of apocalypse across the media, particularly in the newspaper world, when i started shooting. i think that sort of tension pervades the whole film. >> when is your documentary officially going out to the public? >> it is opening in new york on june 17 and in los angeles on june 24 pre it it goes nationwide july 1. it is 91 minutes. >> let's watch the trailer which you send out to the movie houses before, to see the difference in what your able to show and what we are able to show. >> the old newspaper model is dying.
8:03 pm
>> this is about wikileaks, which is a website. they just dropped off on youtube and waited for everybody else to find it. >> the bottom line is, wikileaks does not need us. we are in the middle of cutting 100 people out of staff. >> we do not have a clear grasp on the enormity of the situation. >> is the new york times going to go out of business? >> if you think of the history of these institutions, watergate, abu ghraib, we are at a dangerous moment in american journalism. >> sometimes people have to go past the conventional wisdom. >> they ask if anyone wanted to volunteer for baghdad, so i am going to iraq.
8:04 pm
>> the times to remarkable degree still does set the agenda. >> we are going to toss it out, kickback, and see what facebook turns up. >> i don't think so. >> when did you first did this idea? >> i first had the idea of developing a different film for hbo about web 2.0, about all the social media companies that were emerging. i was interviewing david carr about that topic. it was right after work michael hirsch warned had published an article speculating that the new york times could go out of business within months. david was really quite animated an impasse and in his arguments about why that was all.
8:05 pm
in the context of how technology for that other project had many great benefits, but also cannot really replicate the regional reporting that humans are doing in sidon institution like the times. in singapore for a moment to investigate the resources it takes to do that kind of work. >> so who let you in? >> ultimately it was bill keller who authorized the project. i came into it without a grand sense of what the solution are for traditional media. i came in with a desire just to observe as a documentarian. under the circumstances, bill felt that his journalists would equip themselves in a weight that he would be proud of. he said i am proud of my journalist and i would like the world to see them. >> if a talk-show host asked to
8:06 pm
get in versus you, a yale law school graduate? >> i am not sure that my education was the deciding factor. i think it was my absence of an agenda. the new york slime is certainly a bias in terms of its perspective from the get go. i am someone who has read the paper for my whole life, probably. i have a sense of esteem for what it has done. but the movie also goes right to the heart of some of the failures that the paper has sustained in the last decade, including the failures in reporting in the run-up to the iraq war. >> what were the rules? >> i was not given free rein all over the new york times. i was speaking with the
8:07 pm
journalists on the media desk, and when they would go off to the technology department, my camera would go there as well. i am a filmmaker but also a journalist. i agreed to sort of demonstrate high journalistic ethics as i would in any project was doing. >> david carr has very publicly talked about his addiction both to drugs and alcohol and the like he has led. what you think the times would hire someone with that kind of record? >> i think they did brilliance as a media analyst and his insight is actually made stronger by his back story, by his texture of life, as he calls it. i think the times was able to see to the work through the back
8:08 pm
story. >> what kind of like did you live when you were younger? where did you live and what did your father and mother do? >> my parents owned a restaurant, an italian restaurant in new york city. it was on 81st street between madison and fifth. i am not sure how many will recall, but it was a successful italian restaurant, at a time when there were not as many as there are now. that is in the 1970's and 1980's. they did have the new york times delivered to our door and also the new york post, every day. >> david carr, at some point in your life, you met him at a bar, and there was a conversation with you and your wife. tell us that story. >> we were actually at a film festival in north carolina, and
8:09 pm
i had seen david at the le cu irque opening. i went up and introduced myself and we started talking. he explained that he was a drug addict in his previous life and that he was writing an autobiography about that experience. he told kate and i, would you like to go get a drink across the street at a bar? when he said it, it is said, would you like to go get a drink, and somehow i heard "do you want to go and smoke crack in the hotel across the street, or smoke a joint or something like that?" kate heard it correctly, and she
8:10 pm
said let's go. and of course we just had a very nice conversation. i think we were talking about quentin tarantino movies. we just got along really well from the get go. i have always thought that he was somebody who had a cinematic breath of the motion and an incredible sense of humor. that is the personality that really humanizes the story about what is happening to the newspaper industry. >> if you see pictures of him years ago and pictures in your documentary, there is a vastly different physical look to him. is he held the? >> he has had two different forms of cancer, and he has diabetes. he has a hunched kind of posture as a result of the ravages of cancer and also of addiction. but he seems in good health.
8:11 pm
the clip with him. >> for those of us with -- that carnage is left behind. like model trains whose cabooses have square wheels. i have been fired in my day but only after i failed to show up at work like a normal person. go to treatment, my editor would tell me. there is a bed waiting for you. but at the tender age of 31, i still had a year left before hitting rock bottom, you are left before being that die, before i found my way to this guy, the one with the family and the job at the new york times. one day i came over here and that my friend, phil. phil gave me a film canister
8:12 pm
full of coca. i went into the bathroom. a cop immediately put me up against the wall and knocked me down the street this way and up the plot to where his car was parked. the interesting thing about that, my father worked at city center so i was being locked in handcuffs past the downtown shopping center where my father worked. it was another life, another guy. that guy. >> did you know that i was going to be on that bench are tricks i did not. that is one of the serendipities of shooting. i shot the film myself, which really allowed me to sort of
8:13 pm
develop an intimate relationship with the journalists. it is one of those things where you are just following somebody and you see other things in the background. that scene is sort of moving, because i think some people have seen that and wonder if it is a little bit in since the tip. it is really sincere. he did jail time. he has lived really hard and rugged life, but he has come out on the other side. we showed the film to the investigative reporters conference, and many people saw almost a metaphor for their own industry, people who are really hurting and feel like david is a survivor. almost a character people are looking to to guide them to
8:14 pm
their next business. >> what was the time frame for shooting? >> i started in november 2009 and ended mainly in november 2010, when we submitted it it to sundance. certain stories of wanted to keep tweaking, even between sundance and the release, and wikileaks was one of them. we were able to speak with the foreign editor about the implications of that. sarah ellison of "vanity fair is another analyst who was able to help explain the degree to which newspapers sifted through all the trove of information that wikileaks provided and kind of guided the conversation for those two weeks that we saw that cigarettes on the cover. >> when you say sundance, what
8:15 pm
do you mean? >> the sundance film festival, robert redford's festival in utah. it is really a very great platform to launch a film. first of all, all the industry is there, but a lot of press or there. we have always felt that the movie has a certain urgency to it. we would like for it to be a part of the conversation or debate about what the future of journalism is. even the pay wall, which is something the times has launched an people are debating whether it can work or not. the movie does not come down on one side or another as to the viability of that, but it does treat a lot of the arguments on either side. >> when you shot this documentary, what were the rules about when you return the camera off and leave it on and when you do something one of these reporters would say? >> the only understanding i had
8:16 pm
with the journalists was that if someone said to me at the moment that we were shooting, this has to be off the record, i have to call my wife or do something, that i would not use it. i think that only happened literally a handful of times. >> in the middle of all this, david carr runs a front-page story about that company out of chicago that got sam zell fired. how much of that real able to put in your documentary? >> there is a very tense confrontation with representatives of the tribune company in which she goes through distorted details about allegations of sexual harassment at the tribune company. it is just a classic moments where a writer sort of dials and does not know exactly what they are going to say. minutes later they are in the
8:17 pm
the middle of butting heads. david has the sort of righteousness behind him, and that, combined with his objective approach to the reporting and the allegations, really won the day. two weeks later, randy michaels resigned from the tribune company from pressure from the board at tribune. it was an article that resonated loudly in chicago and in other communities were the tribune's assets had been significantly eroded. those are not just businesses. sam zell says in one of the clips, i am not a newspaperman, i am a businessman. those our community, city assets that people organize around and that educate the people of that
8:18 pm
community. with those gone, those communities suffer. >> there is another young reporter that you focused on, brian stelter. >> probably the only known journalist [unintelligible] >> here was this 21-year-old kid who started a block anonymously. he made his brand of just getting out there and blogging. >> i think the times had the idea, why it don't we hire this guy? the times contacted me and asked me to come up and do a series of interviews back-to-back with editors. >> you see him at his desk and he has to laptops and he is twittering. he just embodies everything about new media.
8:19 pm
>> i constantly break my colleagues who are not on twitter. i hear my colleagues talking about a story at noon, and i read it on twitter at midnight. why are we not on top of the news? it is 2010. >> i still cannot get on -- get over the feeling that brian stelter is a robot assembled in the basement of the new york times. >> why did he say that, and why did you use that clip? >> that line always gets the hugest laughs. i think that brian stelter and david carr represent these two poles of the journalism world. david is someone who came up in the alternative weekly tradition, magazines. he is in his mid-50's but he is adapting to using twitter and facebook to publish stories out to people and sometimes to do
8:20 pm
reporting with them. david is almost like the max headroom of the current age, in the sense that he has had video blocks that have been very successful. people respond to him on camera , especially on the videos that are on the times website. he just is somebody who has a ferocious online presence, but in a very different way than brian, who is bleeding from tornadoes in the middle of the country as well as doing front page stories. he is 25 years old, and seemingly can do everything that david can do, but also stay up twice as late. >> he got this job -- how often
8:21 pm
has it happened that a 22-year- old went straight to the new york times? >> i am pretty sure he is the youngest reporter to be hired their, in recent memory. >> did you have an agreement that he would lose 90 pounds throughout the time you are taking? it almost cannot recognize him at the end of your film. >> bryan wanted to lose weight the whole time before we started shooting. took six months of discussions about the project before it launched. i think when we started filming, he wanted to see in the film the progression of his weight loss, so he tweeted his diet. he would tweet how many calories he ate every day. somehow the shame of that worked really well, and he lost 90 pounds.
8:22 pm
>> word you fit in the spectrum of david carr and brian stelter? calgary crashed or >> i am 37. >> where do you fit in that spectrum as far as the new technology, reading a newspaper or reading the web? >> in a sense i am a generation in the middle. i think that the people i know of my generation still really love to read the newspaper if they have the time to do it, but are increasingly getting their information from smart phones, from the ipad, digital platforms. i think personally that i love the serendipity of opening a newspaper and seeing things that were not necessarily the destination that i had to inform myself, things i am finding as i read the paper, how the editors have decided what the placement should be.
8:23 pm
but the romance of holding the paper and getting ink on my hand does not seem to me to be sustainable. i think that the real difficulty we have now is this gap between the print product, which typically has the tiffanies add on the top right corner of a3, for which the times can charge a great amount of money, and the web site which has not been able to monetize in the same way, but probably will at some point, when one's preferences can be mapped and ngo location is perfect, and those ads become more valuable. that sort of transition we are in now is sort of crippling and in some cases bankrupting many organizations. >> or your parents still alive? >> yes. >> they must have been interested in what you saw. >> that found most striking,
8:24 pm
david. they were most surprised by someone would david's ethics or texture of like being such a stalwart at the paper. they actually saw the film for the first time on monday, and they loved it. my dad was talking to david after the premiere and i think was stunned that david is so brilliant but also so infielder. >> how important was the times to you when you are growing up? explain it to someone who has never read it, that only knows it from the conservative point of view that they are continually beat up on for being a liberal newspaper. >> when i was in high school, we had a history class, an assignment to read the week in review on the weekend come in and discuss the paper. that would be the structure of the class for the day, talking
8:25 pm
about current events. my parents owned a restaurant, and the restaurant review would make or break restaurants at that point. that was before there were all the blocks that exist today and all the other online sources for rating rest once. it was huge. >> was your parents' restaurant ever reviewed by the times? >>, yes, it was. they got every rating in the book, including the highest rating. ever the only italian restaurant to have that for several years, but they got one, too, and three stars. made a tremendous difference. >> just the fact that a review? >> it would make a difference, especially at that time when there were not as many outlets competing with the new york times monopoly over assessing the scene in new york. particularly in certain niches,
8:26 pm
the time is really dominated. dieter, restaurants, etc.. today it is a little bit different, but the times sort of ordered the world when i was growing up. gay talese talks about that a lot, the idea that something did not exist unless it was in the pages of the times. today, that is really quite different, but i think many would argue effectively that the authority of the times persists, but in a very different way. >> here is another clip of another person you featured from you documentary. >> a lot of the people in the baghdad bureau had been to kabul, and they ask if anyone wanted to volunteer for baghdad, so i am going to iraq.
8:27 pm
>> capital cases, death row. tim is just one of the guys who wants answers to very basic questions. >> iraq is kind of of people's radar screens, but we still have 120,000 soldiers there, at a crucial point in terms of seeing what the last chapter is for our country there. >> the locals who have worked for us, some have been killed and kidnapped. that is something he wants to do, so you tell yourself he will be okay. >> to settle in with the iraqi
8:28 pm
staff and write stories. >> you have covered a bunch of other conflicts, right? >> i did a tour in yugoslavia. >> it will figure it out. >> those of us who have been covering this -- [unintelligible] they never come back. they just keep going and going and going. i wish you much success for you are going, but i do not want to go so well that you never come back.
8:29 pm
>> this is tim? >> he is currently the baghdad bureau chief. we see him here right before he went for his first tour. he was a media reporter who was really a bogus thing on the mobiles, covering the top level media stories. we see him earlier in the film reporting with andrew ross sorkin about the merger of comcast and universal. "the times" engage the necessary resources and spent the money to train him to report from the war zone and put him in the baghdad bureau, where there is a very extensive staff of translators and drivers and bodyguards and
8:30 pm
people in order to continue reporting on the war in iraq. >> where is he now? cracks right now he is back in baghdad. >> the documentary was paid for how? >> the documentary was paid for by blood, sweat, and tears. mike co-producer and i, kate novak, who is also my wife, we worked basically with deferred salaries, because we really believed in this project we raise money from friends and some other investors, just a handful of people who had also invested in our last movie. many of them are folks i know from college and law school, people i think who believe in kate and i ask filmmakers, and thought this was really an important story to tell. >> did your documentary then it purchased by somebody? >> it has been acquired by
8:31 pm
magnolia pictures and participant media, and history films is our television partner. participant media is the production company behind " waiting for superman." they are developing a social action campaign around the themes in the film, and hoping to make people focus on where we get our news today and what some of the challenges are to that way of getting news. the tagline they have developed for the film is "consider the source." one should always be an educated reader, but also to consider that some of the original reporting that its aggregated or linked in various forms to remember what the source of that information was originally. >> how long is the documentary?
8:32 pm
>> is 91 minutes. >> magnolia pictures had restricted us to 10 minutes, and we had to send the clips that we wanted to them, and then they send the video back to us. sometimes people want to see something after you release it. before i show the last clip from your documentary, you keep mentioning "le cirque: a table in heaven." when did it hit hbo, and what was it? >> it was a film that we made that was released in 2008. we started working on it in 2005. that one took a really long time. this time around, we wanted to do something that came out and join the conversation more quickly.
8:33 pm
we followed a family in the restaurant business as they closed their restaurant at the palace hotel and reopen it at the bloomberg building. le cirque is a restaurant that is sort of a canteens for politicians and celebrities and jet setters. he has cultivated over his entire life. growing up on a form in tuscany, arriving in this country as an immigrant, and building this fabulous circus. it is a restaurant that when we encountered it, it was in a down time and had to transition to reopening. his sons take the mantle and really reinvented. >> i saw it on hbo.
8:34 pm
can you buy it now? >> yes, the d b d is available on our website, and our producer who is also our sales agent is hopefully negotiating a deal with netflix, so it will be available on netflix very soon. >> but watched the trailer. the trailer.h >> i have been working in arrest brought all my life, but i hate this business. i do it for my three sons. i am successful because i believe in the people who come to my restaurant. >> the drives me nuts. >> it cannot open up the cart with pitbull who do not know their lines and expect to get a good review.
8:35 pm
>> i decided to close and start all over again in a new location. >> we are just kidding ourselves and the foot. -- shooting ourselves in the book. in the foot. >> where did you get that idea? >> that idea was sort of personal. i am also a first generation sort of italian american. my dad came to this country and build a restaurant without much around him. he is not quite as larger than life as serio is, but making that documentary was sort of a way of reliving my own family
8:36 pm
dynamic. i actually had read an article in the new york times about the fact that le cirque was closing, and it was analyzing the extent to which that was a sort of cultural moment in the decline of old french cuisine in this country. the food world has revolutionized so much. i thought it would be an interesting moment to look at whether fine dining is dead in the united states, or dying. >> tell me if i am wrong, but this that resemble your family at all? >> my brother and i were kept much more in line, but i admire
8:37 pm
the way that the sons really fought back. it is a great window into an italian family. >> where is everybody today? >> there are still having great success with the new restaurant at the bloomberg building. mario is in las vegas and there is a new restaurant. the others are still in new york at the old restaurant. >> you keep mentioning your wife, kate novak. where did you meet her, and when did you marry? >> we were married in 20001, and we always forget our anniversary date for one reason or another. we were married in 2001.
8:38 pm
we met through both of our best friends at the time who were dating. i think we met at a birthday party. we hit it off, and a couple of months later, so each other again and then started dating. >> where did you both learn video work? >> kate had worked in publicity at a p.r. firm that does strategic p.r. work. she wants to go to the other side after having that experience and went to columbia journalism school and was a reporter at "time" magazine. at think we both thornberry
8:39 pm
impassions interest -- we both were very impassioned in pursuing our dreams that way. we co-wrote the film together, and we love working together. >> did you edit it, too? >> we had three fantastic actors working with us. i sometimes get on the keyboard a tiny bit just to help out, but kate and i were really looking at the structure. we made this film over the course of 14 months, and the idea was that it was a play within a play. all the stories that the desk writer for creating are these little discreet windows and disruptions in the media landscape. >> i want to show you five seconds of an interview in the
8:40 pm
newsroom about 10 years ago. >> our motto is "all the news that's fit to print," and that is not going to change. >> all the news that's fit to print. is that of their slogan today? >> that is such a great question. -- is that a their slogan today? >> we have been talking about the model of the times. we interviewed someone in the german publishing world. he said it should say all the news that is fit to publish or distribute or share. i think the thrust of that model really does hold true in that concept of what is fit to print or what is accurate, insightful,
8:41 pm
that promise of the times, quality journalism, stays true and is at the core of what they do and their success. >> here is the last clip from your documentary. the title of a documentary is -- >> "front page: inside the new york times." >> we now know how many people have opted to go voluntarily, which means we know how many people we have to lay off. in the immediate moment, we are in the middle of cutting 100 people out of a staff of roughly 1250. we have spent a lot of time in the last couple of weeks going over lists, trying to prioritize, based on skills we can afford to lose. we are not a specialized newspaper. we try to be excellent at
8:42 pm
everything from foreign coverage to education coverage to ours to sports. we are large, but there is not a lot of slack in the system. i feel some days that we should be symbolically wearing bloody butchers smocks around the newsroom. it is a grim undertaking. [unintelligible] >> we have to dump bodies overboard. we do not have any choice. >> in those circumstances, i would get a release form from the subject. carla was very emotional and enthusiastic about talking about her experience at "the times."
8:43 pm
that was a tough day, though. >> bill keller has since stepped down. the have any inside information as to why he stepped down? >> my sense is that he has had an historic tenure at "the times." it took over at a really tense time because of the jason blair scandal. he has overseen a to-front war in reporting. he has probably had more keep -- more people kidnapped and injured on the job and other executive editors in the history of "the times." he launched the pay wall, which was seen to be wildly unpopular.
8:44 pm
as david likes to say, he has headed off the baton which was given to him on fire to jill abramson in a stable and not on fireplace. my sense is that he feels like he has weathered the ship. he came on board in order to steady it, and now he is at the point where he is ready to move on to writing. >> here is a clip of jill abramson who was recorded on our call-in show 10 years ago. another was some controversy over women in this documentary and those that did not want to be on camera. let's watch her. >> one thing i was wondering is, pretty much the way i look at it, you always hear the flavor of the of liberal media and different labels being thrown
8:45 pm
out like this. i really do not think there is a lot of media that does come out in newspaper and television. there is a lot that we really do not see. do you think that the media is really liberally biased at all? >> i do not think on the pages of the new york times that you find a liberal bias, though our critics claim they see it. i think why you hear so much said about the political opinions of the media one way or another is that the proliferation of television shows where pundits, who may also be columnists, expressed very strong views, that the public does not discern between them as opinion writers and reporters who are covering the news in a much straightaway. >> how surprised review when the announcement was made that she was taking the job?
8:46 pm
>> i was not surprised at all by the selection of jill to take over. some were surprised at the timing. that thought that bill would stay for the next election just to be covering that. i think everyone has always seen jill as a successor. >> we did not see much of her in the documentary. why not? >> she appears in one of the meetings in which wikileaks is discussed. she declined to participate in a sit-down interview. there has been reaction about the fact that the film feels very mail. we are calling for journalists, all of whom are men. they are the central figures. the plain facts are that there were 14 journalists on the media desk, and two of them only were women, and both of them declined
8:47 pm
to participate. >> why? >> i cannot say. i would ask them to do an interview or to let me shoot them every couple of weeks. it got to the points of pretty persistent requests on my part. but they just had reasons that they did not want to participate. that was part of the parameters when i came in. the media desk editor had me meet with all the journalist and allow them to voice their concerns about the project. the whole thing was that the new york times had no editorial control over this bill. -- over this film. anyone who wanted to participate could. no one would be forced into it. it was a completely elective process, and they decided not to. >> 25 years ago, we were only
8:48 pm
allowed to show seymore topping's office. then the newsroom was redone. this time you are talking about going from 1250 and dropping 100. listen to how many people worked there 10 years ago. >> you now have 207 markets nationwide for this newspaper is delivered. how expensive is that? >> it is an expensive. we are an expensive newspaper to produce, in terms of the size of our newsroom and in our distribution. on the other hand, we are not an inexpensive newspaper to purchase. you pay for quality. but this is our future. this is actually all were present, to grow our paper to
8:49 pm
make it increasingly national, to make it as available to as many people as we possibly can. we also have the internet as well. the new york times is the largest newspaper on the internet as well. there are places where you cannot get it in print for you can still get access to the information we offer our readers. >> what has changed, 10 years later? >> there certainly have been two rounds of layoffs. we captured the second. it is a smaller news room. even just looking at the terminals behind you in the background there, now everybody is working off of flat screens. >> that have moved from the spot we just saw. >> that is the old times building. it has the feeling of modernity
8:50 pm
and transparency. there is not a free press in the basement as there was in the old building -- a printing press in the basement. literally, the air quality feels different. it feels much more like a multimedia organization that has journalism as its core. >> what was mr. sulzberger's attitude toward you? >> he and i did not meet until very recently. although i had met him once before, he comes to the restaurant on the night that they are getting reviewed by the times totally by coincidence, apparently. >> and the review was not very good. >> the review was awful. it makes for great drama in that film.
8:51 pm
but the corporate side and the newsroom of the new york times are separated by a very high and burma wall. the project was authorized by bill keller. it was taking place in the newsroom, so we did submit request to both the publisher and the ceo to do interviews, and they declined. perhaps that is for the best, because really the journalism and the journalists are what rise to be highlighted in the film. the corporate side was not part of the production. >> i want to show you some 28- year-old video that we did with the managing editor. >> tin years from now, what will
8:52 pm
the new york times be? >> i think it will be probably, i think and hope it will maintain itself as a newspaper of continuity. i think it will be a great deal like it is now. i think there will be a lot more color. the news, the magazine section, and business. i don't think he will pick up the paper and say this is a different kind of newspaper, that it is politicized, at least i hope not. if i am not around, i am coming back. i think it would "be the new
8:53 pm
york times." >> what did you hear there? was he right? cracks in a sense, i think they've rosenthal was a pioneer in the notion of a newspaper having many different sections. to blanket a metropolitan area or region, and with all those different sections supporting the classified section, the style section, the automobile section, the local editions, etc. that concept of the newspaper as being this multifaceted, many different sections product. in a way, the model for that is no longer quite as successful because of the decline in classified advertising, but you do see another version of that
8:54 pm
that the times is executing which is several blogs. you have dealbook or even if media at decoder. metro has several that are very successful. as we were discussing earlier, once the platforms like ipad and smart phones are capable of having advertising that can be monetized, all those blocks can make money. >> when will people be able to buy this if they cannot get to a theater? >> i believe the dtv release will be sometime in the fall. >> do you have plans for your next documentary? >> i really am focusing on the release of this bill now, so not as yet. >> you don't have a set you are thinking of? >> no. >> are you happy you chose to
8:55 pm
be of videographer, producer, director of documentary's instead of a lawyer christopher >> i am. i have to say, i find being behind the camera and shooting thrilling subjects and putting them together and creating films that are documents of a historical moment be a joyous way to spend my life. >> what was the toughest part of this? >> i would say the toughest part was trying to rangel all the different stories that we tracked, and composing them with kate in a structure that could be entertaining, enlightening, and persuasive all at the same time, under a very tight deadline. >> our guest has been andrew rossi. he has put together a documentary with his wife, kate novak called "front page: inside
8:56 pm
the new york times." thank you very much. [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010] [captioning performed by national captioning institute] >> for a dvd copy of this program, call 1-877-662-7726. to give comments on this program, visit us at q-and- the programs are also available as podcasts. grex of next, british prime minister david cameron appears that no weekly question time in parliament. then it is "road to the white house, featuring michele bachmann and texas representative ron paul at this week's annual republican
8:57 pm
leadership conference. >> next, prime minister's question time from the british house of commons. prime minister david cameron took questions from members of parliament on topics including the ongoing nato campaign in libya, political unrest in the middle east, and the recent torture allegations against the syrian regime. from london, this is 30 minutes. >> question no. one. >> mr. speaker, this morning and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and in addition to my duties in this house, i will ever such meetings later today. >> thank you, mr. speaker. thousands of people in my constituency work hard for less than 26,000 pounds a year. does my right hon. friend agree with me that everybody who
8:58 pm
believes in the necessity of capping benefits must vote for the welfare reform bill tonight? >> i think my hon. friend is entirely right. we are right to reform welfare. welfare costs have gone out of control in our country. we want to make sure that if people do the right thing, we will be on their side. it cannot be right for some families to get over 26 dozen pounds a year in benefits that is paid for by people who are working hard and paying their taxes. i would say that everyone in the house should support the welfare bill tonight. it is a disappointment that labor talk about welfare bill will not vote for welfare reform. >> mr. speaker, when the prime
8:59 pm
minister son of his welfare bill, did he know that it would make 7000 cancer patients worse off by as much as 94 pounds a week? >> that is simply not the case. we are using exactly the same definition of people who are suffering and are terminally ill as the last government. we want to make sure those people are held and protected. the point i would make is if you are in favor of welfare reform, you encourage people to do the right thing. it is no good talking about it. you have to vote for it. >> as usual, mr. speaker, he does not know what is in his own bill. cancer patients to lose up to 94 pounds of week. these are people who have worked hard all their lives, who have done the right thing and pay their taxes, and when they are in need, the prime minister is taking


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on